Do Other Players Make Fun Of You When Playing A Bottom-Low Tier Class?

[Bartmanhomer]

This question I just want to bring the table and open for discussion. You play a Fighter and other players say "why on earth you're playing a low tier character Your fighter will get crushed by Wizards especially in high levels." And it brings you down because you said: "Fighter is fun to play with." So does this ever happen to you and if so, Tell me your story.

[EisenKreutzer]

My playgroup are close friends, so this would never happen except maybe in a playful, fun way. Also, most of them either don’t know about or don’t care about the tier system, and just play what they want to play.
One of the players in my Pathfinder group is playing a dwarf rogue, in a group with a warder bushi, a rajah, a vitalist and a wizard. Meaning he’s a tier 4/5 in a group of tier 3s and a tier 1. He doesn’t care, the rest of the group doesn’t care, and our game goes on just fine.

[False God]

Nah, 'cause playing low-tier classes is my chance to chill. And I'm way too chill to care. Also my friends are cool.

[pabelfly]

My table is pretty casual and I don't think many of the group is aware of the tiers. When we had a fairly serious optimizer in the group he did question why I would use a Truenamer but I never felt like I was made fun of or anything like that for the character I made.

[Bartmanhomer]

My playgroup are close friends, so this would never happen except maybe in a playful, fun way. Also, most of them either don’t know about or don’t care about the tier system, and just play what they want to play.
One of the players in my Pathfinder group is playing a dwarf rogue, in a group with a warder bushi, a rajah, a vitalist and a wizard. Meaning he’s a tier 4/5 in a group of tier 3s and a tier 1. He doesn’t care, the rest of the group doesn’t care, and our game goes on just fine.


Nah, 'cause playing low-tier classes is my chance to chill. And I'm way too chill to care. Also my friends are cool.


My table is pretty casual and I don't think many of the group is aware of the tiers. When we had a fairly serious optimizer in the group he did question why I would use a Truenamer but I never felt like I was made fun of or anything like that for the character I made.
Well I'm glad everybody is ok for having a bottom-low tier class by not making fun of. :smile:

[EisenKreutzer]

Stuff like this happens when people don’t fully understand the tier system, or misunderstand what it is.
The tiers are not a 1 to 6 rating of how good a class is. They are a measurement of how versatile, flexible and efficient the class is at successfully resolving all kinds of encounters in a typical roleplaying game scenario.
The wizard is tier 1 because they can solve any problem with little effort or expenditure of resources.
The fighter is tier 5 because they fight, and when they go up in level they fight slightly better.

Where people really go wrong is in assuming that there is no reason to play a low tier character, because the higher tier classes are «better.» in truth, there are as many reasons to play a low tier character as there are reasons for playing rpgs to begin with. First of all, there is real value in playing a character that is mechanically simple, or focused on one thing if you are a beginner to the game or have low system mastery (or just don’t care, are here for the beer and pretzels etc.).
Secondly, at many tables the rules are set aside for most of the campaign, only being invoked when the situation absolutely mandate them (like combat). When most interactions with the game world happen throuh roleplaying, how mechanically effective a character is often doesn’t matter.

[Afghanistan]

Nobody that you allow at your table should make fun of you for playing the character that you want to play.

[Bartmanhomer]

Nobody that you allow at your table should make fun of you for playing the character that you want to play.

I agree. If people can't accept my character because he a low or even bottom tier, I'm leaving your game for good. :mad:

[Afghanistan]

I agree. If people can't accept my character because he a low or even bottom tier, I'm leaving your game for good. :mad:

I don't think it is something that needs accepting. It is a matter of personal responsibility and just not being "That Guy". Just play at your tables accepted level of optimization.

[Buufreak]

I make fun of a hell of a lot of things. Mass murder. The entirety of Harry Potter and its fans. A certain person who believed in divine monarchy that got way too hammered and slammed her Ferrari into a brick wall.

But above all else, I will always make fun of my friends, especially for bad decisions. That's what makes is friends.

That said, you presume far too much as to what we consider bad decisions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

With my current group, I might get some good-natured ribbing but otherwise not really.

With a new group, not for very long. I'm a pretty solid optimizer and I specialized my skill in that realm for squeezing every tiny iota of worth out of low-tier classes and builds. As long as the GM isn't antagonistic to it, low-tier classes can hold their own just fine and I can make them shine better than most. Side affect of being a forever-gm in the past and wanting to have variety in my antagonists without just hand-waiving everything. If I can make a bloody forsaker work, getting a fighter up to snuff is no big deal.

[pabelfly]

With my current group, I might get some good-natured ribbing but otherwise not really.

With a new group, not for very long. I'm a pretty solid optimizer and I specialized my skill in that realm for squeezing every tiny iota of worth out of low-tier classes and builds. As long as the GM isn't antagonistic to it, low-tier classes can hold their own just fine and I can make them shine better than most. Side affect of being a forever-gm in the past and wanting to have variety in my antagonists without just hand-waiving everything. If I can make a bloody forsaker work, getting a fighter up to snuff is no big deal.

What sort of build did you run with the Forsaker? I'm interested in working out how to build one, and so far I'm thinking it might work with the Vow of Poverty bonuses.

[bean illus]

What sort of build did you run with the Forsaker? I'm interested in working out how to build one, and so far I'm thinking it might work with the Vow of Poverty bonuses.

For VoP cheese try getting your dm to accept permanency spells on your staff. Technically it's not crafted and not a magic item, it's a spell, and you're allowed to cast them.

Then your staff invisibly attacks and flanks for you, etc.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What sort of build did you run with the Forsaker? I'm interested in working out how to build one, and so far I'm thinking it might work with the Vow of Poverty bonuses.

First, I got in early. Karsite with 2 levels in human paragon can get you in starting at 3. Karsite's spell resistance stacks with forsaker's for a fairly impressive value. Sprinkle with levels in your favorite martial adept for solid offensive options.

Then as levels progress, it's all about gear selection. At low levels you can get by on special materials and alchemy but as you get higher you have to get creative. The biggest gem for getting along there is the artificer devices built by a gnome artificer from Magic of Faerun. Grafts also aren't technically magical.

I won't lie to you, it's -rough- going and it falls apart toward the end of mid-level but there's definitely a certain satisfaction in getting to call the rest of your crew magic-reliant weenies for a dozen levels; all in good fun, of course.

Stay a -long- ways away from VoP. It works kinda, sorta okay with an incarnate or totemist but it just locks you into being barely base-line competent with anything else that isn't a straight-up caster character. If you can rely on an allly to buff you then it's not such a big deal but a forsaker has to actively resist even beneficial spells targetting him.

[Rhyltran]

To answer the question not really. I am the dm 98% of the time but rarely when I am not I tend to play tier 4-5 classes. This is because I have been so used to designing encounters I like really putting the system through the works and optimizing my concept as high as I can. With my system mastery compared to the rest of the playgroup I would break the game as anything higher than tier 3. No one makes fun of me or even ribs on me because they know what I am capable of building. Even then I hold back.

[pabelfly]

First, I got in early. Karsite with 2 levels in human paragon can get you in starting at 3. Karsite's spell resistance stacks with forsaker's for a fairly impressive value. Sprinkle with levels in your favorite martial adept for solid offensive options.

Then as levels progress, it's all about gear selection. At low levels you can get by on special materials and alchemy but as you get higher you have to get creative. The biggest gem for getting along there is the artificer devices built by a gnome artificer from Magic of Faerun. Grafts also aren't technically magical.

I won't lie to you, it's -rough- going and it falls apart toward the end of mid-level but there's definitely a certain satisfaction in getting to call the rest of your crew magic-reliant weenies for a dozen levels; all in good fun, of course.

Stay a -long- ways away from VoP. It works kinda, sorta okay with an incarnate or totemist but it just locks you into being barely base-line competent with anything else that isn't a straight-up caster character. If you can rely on an allly to buff you then it's not such a big deal but a forsaker has to actively resist even beneficial spells targetting him.

Thanks for the ideas.

Normally I'd stay right away from VoP but think there's some synergy there when you're swearing off magic items already. Might stat a martial character out later and see how good I can make the two work together.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Thanks for the ideas.

Normally I'd stay right away from VoP but think there's some synergy there when you're swearing off magic items already. Might stat a martial character out later and see how good I can make the two work together.

If you've got allies that can and are willing to buff you, VoP isn't so bad. Permanent spell effects aren't gear and grafts still work too. Symbionts are allies as much as they are gear. Finding an allied celestial that you can channel is a thing too. The only one of those that isn't debatably against the spirit of the vow is the channelled celestial but they're all technically not possessions.

Honestly, I'd probably rule against the permanent spells and grafts but I can see the argument both ways.

[Mordante]

Stuff like this happens when people don’t fully understand the tier system, or misunderstand what it is.
The tiers are not a 1 to 6 rating of how good a class is. They are a measurement of how versatile, flexible and efficient the class is at successfully resolving all kinds of encounters in a typical roleplaying game scenario.
The wizard is tier 1 because they can solve any problem with little effort or expenditure of resources.
The fighter is tier 5 because they fight, and when they go up in level they fight slightly better.

Where people really go wrong is in assuming that there is no reason to play a low tier character, because the higher tier classes are «better.» in truth, there are as many reasons to play a low tier character as there are reasons for playing rpgs to begin with. First of all, there is real value in playing a character that is mechanically simple, or focused on one thing if you are a beginner to the game or have low system mastery (or just don’t care, are here for the beer and pretzels etc.).
Secondly, at many tables the rules are set aside for most of the campaign, only being invoked when the situation absolutely mandate them (like combat). When most interactions with the game world happen throuh roleplaying, how mechanically effective a character is often doesn’t matter.

QFT

Playing a relative mechanically simple character is great. I dropped my druid to play a fighter. With the druid you constantly needed to worry about all the spells, the stats of you wild shapes, and all kind of other stuff. Now I play a pure fighter/archblade and it's so much fun. Instead of my focus going to the stats I can focus on the game.

[Eldariel]

"Make fun of"? No, but I've said "No" to characters that weren't sufficiently powerful or were too powerful for a game before. Mind, in such games I inform the players beforehand of the power level I'm going with, but if I'm asking to actually run a "Tier 1 pulling all the stops sans infinite loops" -game, I'm not going to want a S&B Dwarf Fighter as that would be fun for nobody involved.

[Evil DM Mark3]

My old University groups used to complain if someone played a lower tier character as it was percieved as making the rest of the group carry them.

These days anything aside from old-fashioned "Thespian anti-powergaming" self sabotage (you know, negative Con Mods, Str 12 on a sword and board fighter and other obviously bad decisions made to give a character flaws) is just given a smile and a nod.

[Aotrs Commander]

No.



Not unless you were doing so while deliberately self-sabotaging your mechanical viablilty and then continuously moaning that you can't compete to the point of annoying everyone; given that to be in that position, you would have had to have been refusing to listen to the advice that everyone (and likely especially the DM and dobule-especially if the DM is me, the person who not only has the most system mastery of our group but who has actively written what is pretty much an edition's worth of material at this point) would have been giving you, both on the build and/or tactical level.

Though in that instance, the likelihood of you being disinvited to the group because of a complete mismatch in playstyles would be likely to be higher.

We don't expect anyone to be the master of the system, but we DO expect some level of listening to the people that do. You want to play a simple fighter-dude that, say, just throws knives at people? We're totally down with that (we have DONE that), but if metaphorical you is not Good At Mechanics, at least listen when we suggest how you can best spend the 30 (+human) feats that your Fighter 20 gets in 3.Aotrs to make you the darn best knife-throwing guy you can be.

Come to that, we don't pay really any attention to the Tier system, since for one thing, the Tier system can only a) work on un-houseruled classes (of which there are as of this revision, technically none) and b) in a projected game paradigm which may very well not apply to our games.

[Eurus]

People don't generally caution others against playing really low-tier classes out of malice. Rather, the concern is that a player using a class that can't contribute to a variety of situations won't have fun. If you build a fighter with an effective charge routine (or an effective trip build, or something similar) but not much else, what are you going to do when there's a fight where charging (or tripping, or whatever) isn't really viable?

In social scenes, hopefully everyone can be involved based on roleplay. In more problem-solving scenes, a player can suggest solutions that other PCs have the abilities to implement even if they personally don't have anything relevant. But if you're trying to use varied combat types, you're going to have a tough time eventually. A TWF rogue is going to eventually come up against stuff she can't sneak attack, a monk is going to run into stuff that has too much AC for them to hit, a pure melee character is going to have trouble if the terrain makes that difficult.

[BWR]

Make fun of?
Possibly a comment, in a friendly ribbing sort of way. Not in a nasty sort of way.

More often we caution about weak classes to those with less system mastery than the other players. We offer build advice and the odd "I told you so" if said advice is ignored and the player is regretting the character, but we don't constantly tease people over such things, but this applies to all classes.

[Telonius]

Not usually. They know that I can snap reality in two with a higher-tier character, and are generally grateful I'm not doing that.

[denthor]

Watched a 4th level fighter take out two 5th wizards in two rounds 40 feet apart. We spotted the he charges nat 20 confirmed crit. Next round charges nat 20 confirmed crit. Two hit points left on the fighter before charging. Both wizards were casting full concentration illusion spells, no weapons in hand could not attack of opportunity the fighter.

[Bartmanhomer]

Watched a 4th level fighter take out two 5th wizards in two rounds 40 feet apart. We spotted the he charges nat 20 confirmed crit. Next round charges nat 20 confirmed crit. Two hit points left on the fighter before charging. Both wizards were casting full concentration illusion spells, no weapons in hand could not attack of opportunity the fighter.

Wow. That's amazing. :eek:

[vasilidor]

denthor, that was an extremely lucky roll on otherwise preoccupied enemies. It could have very easily went against him. in a game I am currently playing in, I avoided creating a tier 1 wizard because i did not want to overshadow the party. If it was not for a fighter/sorcerer/eldritch knight in the group with ridiculous feats that most other games would say no to(strength replaces charisma for all spell abilities for him), and a rogue played by someone who knows what they are doing, my alchemist would still be the most powerful character. this is mostly because the cleric player has no idea about what spells to use, nor the sorcerer/druid/theurge.
I have tried to help by giving them a list of useful spells that can be used in most combat scenarios, along with a few out of combat ones. now if the cleric player knew what he was doing he would be the strongest in the game. it also helps that the dm has given items and options that render class choice kind of moot in my opinion. we once used an artifact that gave 1 random dwarf in a fortress +1 level for every ally in said fortress, till the end of the siege, to give you an idea as to the shenanigans in the campaign.

[Buufreak]

Wow. That's amazing. :eek:

No, that's lucky. It was a 1 in 400 chance, when in the opposite direction something as simple as hold person could have shut down the fighter. Not a fan? How about the list of spells that will either make him too weak or too uncoordinated to be able to use his weapon, or move in his armor anymore?

This guy won against the rng machine. It is pure luck.

[Bartmanhomer]

No, that's lucky. It was a 1 in 400 chance, when in the opposite direction something as simple as hold person could have shut down the fighter. Not a fan? How about the list of spells that will either make him too weak or too uncoordinated to be able to use his weapon, or move in his armor anymore?

This guy won against the rng machine. It is pure luck.
Well probably the wizards weren't fully optimized. That how the fighter won. So I'll give props for the fighter for being lucky.

[Asmotherion]

i always play casters. So i can't see things from the suggested perspective.

However i don't mind someone playing whatever they want to. At least as long as they don't deliberatelly become a liability to the party (as in purposfully getting silly options to turn their character as useless as possible). i'd prefear if the players in question try to optimise to a similar level as the rest of the party.


Well probably the wizards weren't fully optimized. That how the fighter won. So I'll give props for the fighter for being lucky.

As in this example. The Wizards in question were either played by someone with poor system mastery OR someone downplaying what the Wizards could do on purpose. The first case is fine but i'm not a big fun of the latter.

[Bartmanhomer]

Stuff like this happens when people don’t fully understand the tier system, or misunderstand what it is.
The tiers are not a 1 to 6 rating of how good a class is. They are a measurement of how versatile, flexible and efficient the class is at successfully resolving all kinds of encounters in a typical roleplaying game scenario.
The wizard is tier 1 because they can solve any problem with little effort or expenditure of resources.
The fighter is tier 5 because they fight, and when they go up in level they fight slightly better.

Where people really go wrong is in assuming that there is no reason to play a low tier character, because the higher tier classes are «better.» in truth, there are as many reasons to play a low tier character as there are reasons for playing rpgs to begin with. First of all, there is real value in playing a character that is mechanically simple, or focused on one thing if you are a beginner to the game or have low system mastery (or just don’t care, are here for the beer and pretzels etc.).
Secondly, at many tables the rules are set aside for most of the campaign, only being invoked when the situation absolutely mandate them (like combat). When most interactions with the game world happen throuh roleplaying, how mechanically effective a character is often doesn’t matter.
Yes. That's the problem when people misunderstood what the tier list is. Trust me. I misunderstood that myself when I start playing D&D 3.5. :sigh:

[Mordante]

i always play casters. So i can't see things from the suggested perspective.

However i don't mind someone playing whatever they want to. At least as long as they don't deliberatelly become a liability to the party (as in purposfully getting silly options to turn their character as useless as possible). i'd prefear if the players in question try to optimise to a similar level as the rest of the party.



As in this example. The Wizards in question were either played by someone with poor system mastery OR someone downplaying what the Wizards could do on purpose. The first case is fine but i'm not a big fun of the latter.

Do you think everyone should optimize their characters? Some people like to make "bad: choices because it fits with the character they play.

[Gnaeus]

Do you think everyone should optimize their characters? Some people like to make "bad: choices because it fits with the character they play.

And that’s fine. With 2 caveats.
1. It depends a lot on the game. If you are in a game that operates in competitive power game mode where the DM is running highly dangerous encounters, you may not perform well.
2. Other people have the same right to make “good” choices. Your right to play a swashbuckler with skill focus:love poetry doesn’t change my right to play a Druid with aberrant wild shape.

[Eldariel]

Do you think everyone should optimize their characters? Some people like to make "bad: choices because it fits with the character they play.

That's a can of worms but basically, the table either has to agree on a power level (which makes some characters not viable since a Commoner coughing chickens just doesn't fit into a Justice League story as more than a comical sidekick) or accept the fact that some characters may end up hogging the spotlight or being sidelined due to the power levels of the concepts not aligning. I've played the martial in the system enough to know the pain of being worse than somebody's class feature around the teens. Two of my first games were like that where eventually our casters just did everything and it didn't really matter whether we tagged along or not. It was never intentional nor malicious, just a natural extrapolation of how the game worked. My first character was an Arcane Archer, the second a Dervish. Both were bogstandard martial types.

[VoltsofEight]

People don't generally caution others against playing really low-tier classes out of malice. Rather, the concern is that a player using a class that can't contribute to a variety of situations won't have fun. If you build a fighter with an effective charge routine (or an effective trip build, or something similar) but not much else, what are you going to do when there's a fight where charging (or tripping, or whatever) isn't really viable?

In social scenes, hopefully everyone can be involved based on roleplay. In more problem-solving scenes, a player can suggest solutions that other PCs have the abilities to implement even if they personally don't have anything relevant. But if you're trying to use varied combat types, you're going to have a tough time eventually. A TWF rogue is going to eventually come up against stuff she can't sneak attack, a monk is going to run into stuff that has too much AC for them to hit, a pure melee character is going to have trouble if the terrain makes that difficult.

This is it for me. It's not that the lower tier classes are necessarily bad or that they aren't fun. They are. They even provide important roles in the party. It's that there's few things in tabletop game less fun than realizing you're playing a background character in someone else's story. To seeing the fight-man that you envisioned in your head get outshined not by a better fight-man but by someone who can transform into an animal or monster at the drop of a dime or who can summon something almost as good at fighting as you are while they get to do more cool **** in the background. To see big number get outdone by someone who completely sidesteps the numbers. Or worse to see how comparatively ineffective they are.

[RedMage125]

Stuff like this happens when people don’t fully understand the tier system, or misunderstand what it is.
The tiers are not a 1 to 6 rating of how good a class is. They are a measurement of how versatile, flexible and efficient the class is at successfully resolving all kinds of encounters in a typical roleplaying game scenario.
The wizard is tier 1 because they can solve any problem with little effort or expenditure of resources.
The fighter is tier 5 because they fight, and when they go up in level they fight slightly better.

Where people really go wrong is in assuming that there is no reason to play a low tier character, because the higher tier classes are «better.» in truth, there are as many reasons to play a low tier character as there are reasons for playing rpgs to begin with. First of all, there is real value in playing a character that is mechanically simple, or focused on one thing if you are a beginner to the game or have low system mastery (or just don’t care, are here for the beer and pretzels etc.).
Secondly, at many tables the rules are set aside for most of the campaign, only being invoked when the situation absolutely mandate them (like combat). When most interactions with the game world happen throuh roleplaying, how mechanically effective a character is often doesn’t matter.

A few people have already quoted this again, and I'd like to be one of them.

Seriously, the Tier System also freely acknowledges that it doesn't account for particular builds. Someone could very well build a Fighter that meets the definition of "Tier 4". That has no bearing on the Fighter class as a whole. If you built a wizard, and exclusively picked damage-dealing spells, excluding all defense and utility spells, you'd have a character who not only would fail to meet Tier 1 definitions, but was actually worse than a Warmage (a Tier 3 class that has better HP, more spells per day, armored casting, free spontaneous metamagic feats, and full access to their entire spell list to cast only damage-dealing spells). And even with a good build, player choices and experience with the class make a huge difference, too.

In short, JaronK's Tier System basically tells us "Player > Build > Class". And a lot of people don't understand that.